What not to like at the rest of the championships:
The remaining draw
Something weird happened in that hat - that’s for sure. First, Federer gets a tough draw which is always good, and what is more, the other bracket harbors such names as Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Ljubicic and Safin. So, just when you’re beginning to anticipate a delicious final, you realize that only two of those top contenders are left standing. Straight-sets demolition? I think so!
End of the Rod?
However little Roddick may have brought to the sport of tennis (amazing first serve excepted), you gotta admit he’s one of the most endearing players on the tour – the quick wit, that easy compliment, the self-deprecatory humor, stopping to applaud an artful shot on the court, that shrug of resignation to Federer domination and over-ruling line judges in opponents’ favors. But it looks like we’re not going to have him around as much. Even his serve failed him today. The good news, however, is that his wit didn’t in the press conference after. So, whatever happens in between, Andy, we’ll see you in the ESPN box a decade from now!
More of Rafa
I was almost certain that we won’t have to see more than a week of Nadal, but Andre didn’t do his job and here we are. As much as Federer is making the dirt watchable (employing as he is, his amazing array of shots while rushing to the net whenever possible), Nadal is making the so far unadulterated game of grass court tennis unwatchable. His only plan seems to be to get to the ball and hit it, hard – no strategy, no artistry, not to mention, no sense of time.
There’s still a lot left to like - it’s tennis, after all:
Marathon Monday
What better way to spend the July fourth weekend than to sit glued to the television on a day featuring all the men and women in the draw? Among others, Federer will take on the Czech youngster who also happens to sport an ominous forehand and all-court game; Berdych can take pleasure in the fact that he beat Roger at the Olympics and gave him a hard time at the warm-up in Halle. It’s looking like too much of a good thing though, so don’t be surprised at a bunch of straight set demolitions.
Andy Murray – could he be the one?
Now that the English have lost at the World Cup and Henman is unambiguously out (yeah, they have to actually witness it to believe it, even if all of history and common sense dictate otherwise; relentless people, the Brits), the task of keeping the English sport above water falls to a 19-year old Scot. And if his win against Andy Roddick is anything to go by, he seems like a natural on grass (and he doesn’t moo!). He hits amazingly well on the run and his passing shots almost have a Federer-esque quality (and I use that adjective sparingly).
Andremania I can do without
Don’t get me wrong – for once, I was actualy rooting for Agassi – so he could get rid of Nadal before he had a chance to get into Roger’s head, and so he’d get rid of Nadal, period. Also, felt a tad compassionate for him considering his retirement and all – since that’s all I heard the entire first week. I get it. Everyone loves Andre and everyone is sad that he’s leaving. But does that mean you show every wheezing breath he takes? The ESPN2 American bias is bad enough when you are forced to watch a hard-hitting Sharapova when Justine is outclassing her opponent on another court, or put up with a powering Roddick when Nalbandian is giving someone grief elsewhere. Eulogies, quotes, clips – the Agassi saga went on and on. Jeezuz! The guy aint dead! He’s just retiring, something he probably should have done a while ago, also known as post US Open final against the game’s current best, considering he might not have a shot at that kind of glory this year. And I don’t recall this brand of weighted farewell during the departure of the greatest this country has ever produced – one that gave the sport of tennis the kind of meaning Agassi never could. Maybe they’d have given him his due if he had lost the championship and limped out of court?
Bill Maher is online!
Ok, this has nothing to do with tennis, but if Roger Federer weren’t around, Amazon Fishbowl would single-handedly be responsible for my home entertainment this summer. For those of you who have been living under a rock (aka not on my mailing list) Bill Maher is online live every Thursday night (many thanks to my Maher-loathing pal for bringing this to my attention). Archives of all shows are available and what is more, you can pause and play and see it on your own terms (Gippers, you don’t get to delete the Bush-whacking tho’). Now, what could be a better thing to do during lackluster portions of a tennis match? Doesn’t that beat flipping channels and missing that all-important shot? Now, there’s your tennis connection. And what is more -- you get to mute the annoying Dick Enberg! Like Maher himself says, television is so 20th century. I wish I would get over grabbing the remote to crank up the volume though.
Roger Federer
You knew he’d always be the last word in any tennis piece I wrote, didn’t you? If you thought Federer’s tennis couldn’t get any more beautiful, check out the new Rolex commercial – the smart people from his home country captured everything Roger does on a tennis court, added some music in synchrony and slowed it down a tad (so the rest of the world could catch up). His impending championship win won’t need doctoring though – that’ll be all Roger.
Egotism ....a lifelong romance
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Big W Part III – Pleasures and Peeves
Posted by Karthika at Sunday, July 02, 2006
Labels: Keeping the Eye on the ball
13 comments:
Not so soon. Andre-mania is set to roll on through the summer culminating at the US Open. So, just sit back and enjoy the ride! :)
Also, good to note that you recall the ABSENCE of a similar farewell to Sampras. That's a direct result of the impact each one had on the sport.
And NO...impact is NOT proportional to statistics! If it were, then Kallis would be revered more than Sir Viv.
And NO...impact isn't inversely proportional to statistics. Just ask Borg or Federer!
The world doesn’t have to give Sampras a great farewell, D’sporting, cos he can give it to himself :)
after he lost the ‘01 Wimbledon, people said he was over-the-hill, unfit, not focused and what have you. And so he decided to quit in glory – the only fitting way for the greatest player to say goodbye — came back after two years and thrashed his so-called rival in a memorable final in his home country, shut up the world and left the stage he owned in the same silence that had greeted him.
You’re right – impact is not proportional to statistics, because mortal human beings are too befuddled by true genius to react. If Sampras had lost in straight sets in a third round, they’d probably have worshipped him.
Like the eloquent Chris Fowler said -- 'not everyone can have a fairytale ending'. What he forgot to say was that only the truly great can -- those that can dictate such indomitable elements as age, fortune and destiny.
'mortal human beings are too befuddled by true genius to react'
O Immortal One....pardon the mortals! And you deserve a perfect10 for the modest claim!
So, please explain to this mortal....why is it that us mortals have no problem recognizing the genius in Federer? Why is it that Borg-mania, at that point, gave a new identity to the sport? Is the genius of these players in question? In some ways, I would love it if your answer would be a YES :D:D
'If Sampras had lost in straight sets in a third round' - hehe...Did you expect me to let that by? 2002 Wimbledon. The one that turned out to be his last. 2nd round exit at the hands of George Bastl. Played on Court No2!!! That was his impact at the place he won 7 times. They gave him exactly what he deserved.
And well said! He indeed gave himself a farewell....good for him....but...somehow that sounds so sad to me.
Invincibility is the difference my friend – infallible invincibility (pardon the redundancy but that still falls short of capturing the great man’s genius).
Not to take anything away from Roger, Federer has lost only 4 sets in 25 matches at Wimbledon the past three years. That is most likely bcos he has answers to everyone with his excellent shot-making. While that speaks of unmitigated talent, it doesn’t say much of Roger’s invincibility. if Federer is to beat someone, he has to be in the driver’s seat from the get-go. Roger has rarely found himself in a position where he’d have to use superhuman instincts to get out of a hole. And in the few occasions that he has had to do that, he has come up short. A good example is high-stake matches that go to 5 sets, where Federer is more likely to lose than Sampras would have been (recall the match against Safin at Oz Open ‘05 where Roger actually had a matchpoint in the 4th set and the Rome final against Nadal this year which had 3 tiebreaks and where again, Fed had a matchpoint, both of which he lost).
Sampras, on the other hand, would consistently come back from almost two sets down and take the match even in grand slam finals – this form of peerless invincibility comes from his indomitable serve-volley game and more importantly, a mental toughness that noone, I repeat noone has ever displayed in competitive tennis. And that is what, IMO, throws people off – the intangible element (and that is also the reason why I feel comfortable writing about Roger – the Sampras phenomenon is not only intangible it is inexplicable). Much as people like to see great players, they also want to see the “human” element, the weakness, the fear, that shred of uncertainty. Sampras denied them all that and to top it all, he didn’t give them the smiles and the drama and the lunacy. He just came into a court, did his thing and walked out, job accomplished.
Roger, on the other hand, much as his game is unbreakable, has many instances in a match where he looks like he’s given up; and at such times he only pulls out of holes by feeding off of his opponents’ errors. As for Borg, his infallibility did not stretch over a decade like Sampras’ did and in any case, he was less popular than his more colorful, albeit less-accomplished contemporaries. Moreover, Borg was relentless rather than brilliant, as are most players with a defensive style (think Hewitt/Agassi/ Nalbandian/Nadal). Pete and Roger, on the other hand, sport truly brilliant games, which they play to win, not jus to not lose.
So, it’s not just about the numbers, it is about the reasons behind the numbers. Even if, god forbid, Roger doesn’t win another major, I’d still call him one of the truly great players of all time. Because of his talent. As for Pete, he not only had the numbers but also unadulterated brilliance.
Hehe, I lay no claim to immortality, I just happen to recognize it :D most people seem to like to identify with their heroes. To me, once my hero becomes identifiable, he is much too tangible. So, the more far removed he is from me, the better :) And Pete is as far as it has ever gotten...Though Roger’s catching up :)
Now, that we have concurred that Court No2 was apt for Sampras' last appearance at Wimbledon considering his impact, let me put forth my view on the tangential topic that you went off on.
First, have to mention that it is fascinating to see you so eager to sell Federer short when the subject is Sampras.
Anyway, Jaime Yzaga, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Pat Rafter...these are SOME of the players that have defeated Sampras in 5 sets at Slams.
Hewitt, Phillipousis, Safin, Krajicek...these are people that have dismissed Sampras in straight sets at Slams.
Point to note: Just to avoid INABILITY as an excuse, none of the aforementioned occured at Roland Garros.
Maybe Federer should lose a lot more matches, so that his one 5 set loss in a Slam does not stand out. Or better, just drag each one to 5 sets and win it there. That ought to do it, huh?!
Next...The minimum number of losses Sampras suffered during a year was 8. And he played only 48 matches that year! You should know that Federer has lost a total of 8 matches since January 2005, while winning around 120.
Sampras is 'infallibly invincible'??? Why? Bcos he did not show emotion?? Try Todd Martin then...
'Sampras, on the other hand, would consistently come back from almost two sets down and take the match even in grand slam finals' - I would love for you to list out those Slam finals!
Now BORG.....
1) Borg was called ICE MAN for his demeanour on court. His lack of expression is legendary. But...He was worshipped! Your assessment of his popularity in comparison with his peers (I assume that you meant Connors and McEnroe) is WRONG!..to put it mildly.
2) 24-4 That is Borg's career record in 5 set matches. Unrivalled!
The other interesting part was the insight into the 'attacking' serve-and-volley game versus 'defensive' baseline game. That simple, huh? So, Hewitt and Nalbandian play the same style? Do they both have similar gameplans? hmmmm....
To call Agassi's style defensive is plain laughable. How exactly does defensive (in your parlance 'baseline') tennis manage grass court victories over Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter during the 90s?
Hewitt/Coria play a couterattacking style, which can in some ways be labelled defensive. To slot Agassi/Safin/Nalbandian in the same hole is a mere lack of understanding.
Anyway, conveniently for you, the whole topic has shifted course from Sampras' impact on the sport and you wondering why Agassi is accorded the fanfare that Sampras never merited.
Duh! The “tangent” I went supposedly off on was to explain why Sampras did not have as much impact on people as his so obviously less gifted counterpart (it is not all about the ponytail and drama and lunacy); the mental toughness that Sampras diplayed on court was very hard for people to comprehend.
Sure, Federer could lose a lot more matches, so that his one 5 set loss in a Slam does not stand out. Or drag each one to 5 sets and win.
But that is the 64 thousand dollar question. Can Federer win when taken to such a limit? With the evidence we have so far, I cant tell. He begins to look befuddled when someone so much as takes a set from him, that it takes him a while to regain composure. Roger, while clearly head and shoulders above anyone else, seems to wilt under pressure. He beat Safin in straight sets in 04, but when it went to five sets in 05, after he had a matchpoint in the 4th set, he couldn’t close out the match. He has lost to people like Nalbandian and Nadal (on a hard court) in tricky long matches. He did come back once to beat Rafa in a five setter, but he’s never needed to go to a fifth set in the high pressure majors. That is both cos of his peerless talent and the lack of sufficient competition.
And it is not just about losing the match – it is about the way you handle it, the body language on court, the way you get out of a hole when presented with one. On grass especially, the most unpredictable surface, the mental factor is paramount. While I think Roger would stun Pete with his shot-making at the Oz open, on faster surfaces like the USO and Wimbledon he would have a really hard time countering Pete and Pete might come out on top, esp if matches go to five sets. I’m not shortchanging Fed – could never do that. I’ve always said that he is a more versatile player than Sampras is, but Pete plays to win. Pete broke down and cried in the Oz open when his coach was diagnosed with tumors, he was clearly in mental anguish, and he still came through and won that match against courier in 5 long sets, on not his most friendly surface. He was down 2 sets to love, then 4-2 down in the 4th set – came back to win in the last three sets. His last big W win against rafter of course is legendary – the one shekar writes about in that article, where he is 4-1 down in the second set tiebreak after losing the first set.
As for your sightings of pete’s 5 set losses, and your stats of Rog vs Pete, you seem to have forgotten I said “high-pressure” matches which usually means majors – that is where invincibility comes into play, not at the Cincinnati open. and those examples are stretched over a decade; we are looking at Roger’s three years in comparison.
The statement about the baseliners was made in the “larger picture”. I was merely making a point that players like Agassi/Nadal don’t have much of a strategy or game plan – they just go after every ball and merely win points off their opponents’ errors – that is by no means simple, to put pressure on the opponent and be mentally tough especially against the big servers, but while they have to be more relentless, and go after every shot, you never see a brilliant attacking shot that wins the point at once; they have to toss the ball back and forth several times and simply try to get the ball out of reach in the near future (and to me, that is boring) - a game played without mental acumen can never equal the brilliant strategizing and mind games that goes into an aggressive, offensive playing style (and this I think is true of most sports).
I’m all too aware that the counter-puncher is even less stellar than the “aggressive” baseliner (btw that is an oxymoron IMO). The counterpunchers are the reason I rarely watch claycourt tennis – the only strategy on clay is to play 40 shot ralleys and wait for one of the players to tire or lose focus. That isn’t a game plan. Neither is going after every ball like Nadal does a game plan. Tennis is about reading the opponent, breaking down his weaknesses, neutralizing his strengths, taking risks and strategizing to WIN points using your strengths not the other person’s errors.
(Btw, for a person that enjoys watching men get into fancy cars and drive to their deaths, you seem to be very conservative in your tennis interests ;))
As for Sampras’ defeat in W’02, Pete didn’t retire then; every player has to bid farewell at some point – it is the style in which he leaves that can be glorious or heartbreaking; let’s see if Agassi can pull off even something close to the glory that Sampras had when he left!! Then you can laugh about Sampras (oh, wait, actually you couldn’t, cos when exactly was Agassi’s last major win?). Sampras had less than two years of a dry spell. How many exactly has Agassi had now? I seem to have lost count. the reason Agassi breaks hearts in his departure is because his good-bye is sad, not victorious.
And btw, you haven’t made any point about why Agassi had a bigger impact than Sampras. You obviously cant say he was a better player. If you are going to say he won one French open, please save it cos that is even sadder.
Borg being more popular than Johnny Mac and Connors is boloney. Borg has been called boring on more than one occasion. Besides Borg was Swedish. Europeans have no problem with passive personalities; it is the Americans that prefer flamboyance over talent – this is more than obvious in the football/basketball stars they worship.
I am not sure about each and everyone of the players you have mentioned, but I will disagree with your point that Agassi "merely won points off of his opponents' errors". I seriously doubt if you can do that and still win so many important tournaments. We all know Agassi is one of the best returners the game has ever produced. I have seen him adapt and play according to the situation and the nature of the court and 'force' his opponent into committing errors with ferocious return of serves, against the best of the best. He may not have won all of these matches, but to call his game entirely defensive, is plain wrong.
Also, I still fail to understand why winning the French Open is brushed off as just another tournament win, and not considered a great feat in tennis. Most players find it as being un-natural territory. Doesn't that make the rounds more challenging and the victory a wee bit more sweeter? Moreover, as an "individual player", I wouldnt give a damn if some spectators/viewers find clay to be boring - the fact that I, as a player, was able to overcome all the challenges and win the trophy is all that matters. If the people cannot recognize that, go $%^& yourself. What's the fundamental problem if players slide and grind their way to victory (or a loss that for matter)? Why does 'pretty tennis' always have to be one that is played on a non-Red surface? After all this is a sport that must have been invented to challenge the all-round skills of a player, and different surfaces are going to demand different and special set of skills. You are pitted against a surface and possibly against an opponent that you are not comfortable with, but it still requires you to follow the same rules and win the same damn points as you would on any other surface. I think the fans need to "understand" this aspect, and not ridicule the French Open.
Beautiful tennis doesn't always have to be on the slick grass courts and on the rebound aces and on the hard courts. I have seen some great tennis matches on clay in the early 90s (Graf vs. Sanchez for instance) which produced equally exciting and beautiful tennis.
Oh, by the way, perhaps you need to be made aware of the fact that the guys who ride the fancy cars are some of the most top-notch athletes on the entire planet. Formula One Racing is a *sport*, because it requires physical strength *as well as* mental concentration of the highest order, that too flat out, for close to a couple of hours. It is extremely strategic, organized, and competitive, and is a sport in every sense of the word.
For those of you attacking the “attacking” game, I would highly recommend this article cos I couldn’t say it better - that’s essentially my point.
Atool, my dislike of the French Open has nothing to do with the surface, nor does it have anything to do with sliding & grinding. If they played that style of ‘tennis’ at the big W, I wouldn’t watch it. I will just repeat myself to answer your question.
The French Open merely requires players to be more relentless, and go after every shot, you never see a brilliant attacking shot that wins the point at once; all they do is toss the ball back and forth several times and simply try to get the ball out of reach in the near future (and to me, that is boring) - a game played without mental acumen can never equal the brilliant strategizing and mind games that go into an aggressive, offensive playing style (and this I think is true of most sports).
That is the reason why the French Open has ralley after ralley, and the more persevering player wins with a winner at the end of the ralley -- like i said several times before – simple physical domination, NOT mental or strategic (reason why most French open winners are not among the top players nor able to do well on other surfaces). To me, sport -- esp individual sport -- can never be interesting if it’s all brawn and no brain. an offensive, aggresive style demands mentally overcoming the other player, in addition to the lofty physical demands of the attacking game (think Laver/McEnroe/Sampras/Federer/ Navaritolova/Justine/Hingis).
As for Agassi, he’s definitely more aggressive a baseliner than most (save for Safin, who has the best of both worlds, great aggression from the baseline and a huge serve), but even so there’s very little game plan, esp when compared to the aggressive all-courters or S-V-ers.
No comments on F-1; to each his own; that’s one ‘sport’ I’ll never waste precious time on. Wouldn’t mind getting into the passenger side of one of ‘em cars tho’ :)
Looks like we agree that Sampras did not have much of an impact on the sport. So, what makes you wonder why he did not get the kind of farewell that is accorded to Agassi?...which is why this whole discussion started.
To say that Roger 'couldn't close out the match' against Safin is poor phrasing. NO ONE gets the option of closing out a match against Safin when he is playing well. It's that simple!
The answer to your 64 thousand dollar question is not a YES or a NO, but the obvious 'why the hell does he even have to take it to 5 sets when he can win in 3?'. Tennis offers the challenge of opponent and surface as the primary ones. Needless to say, Federer has conquered most of the challenges he has faced. And is well set to conquer all the challenges in the near future. The same can never ever be said about Sampras. If there was a real need for testing mettle in the 5th set, then, they would be playing 1 set shootouts some place or the other, wouldn't they? Instead, tennis has its very own shootout in the form of a tiebreaker. And Federer's pedigree in those, in spite of the absence of an almighty serve, speaks volumes about mental strength. Enuf said...
Moving on to your predictions...obviously, I do not agree with them. Wim'2001 being the riposte! I have spoken about Roger's defensive return ability sometime earlier and that match was a fine example of that.....that and Sampras' reliance on cheap points.
Sampras served at 70% that match..and yet, lost it! WHY? It was grass, wasn't it? And he wasn't crying/vomiting either, right? So, what was the problem? Simple...Roger gets more serves back than anyone. And needless to say, the quality of the returns (even though they are typically defensive) don't make for easy putaways. So, the need arose for consistently making the difficult volleys. And Sampras is INCAPABLE of that. He needs his serve to do the job for him. The basis of his victories were aces, service winners and putaway volleys.
If the ball kept coming back to him consistently (and wasn't a putaway), he struggled. Obviously, this struggle didn't happen too often, simple bcos of the awesome serve. How else do you explain the phenomenon of consistent failure at the French, when actually, Sampras did have a forehand and a backhand (unlike say, Ivanisevic). His volleying/forehand/backhand never stood up to the test when it needed to be done consistently well. And there is proof for that!
lol, you still havent answered my question. there isnt any answer, is there, except the fact that his genius was simply incomprehensible?! and agassi was pedestrian enough. if you've noticed, the sophisticated tennis watchers (commentators/former players) always sight Pete as the greatest player of all time; it's the laymen that have a problem with identification.
that is the first i've heard of Pete not being able to make the difficult volleys. One question: have you watched him? And I'm not talking about the '01 W where he was clearly past his prime.
There's no doubt in my mind that Roger is the most amazing tennis player and all he has to do now is suprass his own unsurpassability. I was merely talking about the mettle factor; not the game itself. like I said Roger plays impeccable tennis, Pete plays to win.
Post a Comment